Book a demo
ScorpCast v. Oanasun & MG Freesites — User-Generated Video Review Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:20-cv-00203
FiledJun 2020
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

ScorpCast v. Oanasun & MG Freesites: Dismissed With Prejudice After 1,310 Days

ScorpCast LLC, operating as HaulStars, sued Oanasun Entertainment SRL and MG Freesites Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas over US9965780B2 — a patent covering user-generated video review systems. After 3.5 years of litigation, all parties filed a joint motion to dismiss, and the court closed the case with prejudice on January 17, 2024.

Resolution time
1310days
1,310 days — approximately 3.5 years from filing to joint dismissal
Patents asserted
1
US9965780B2 — system and methods for user-generated video reviews
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
With prejudice — ScorpCast cannot refile the same claims against these defendants
Cost ruling
Own costs
Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — no cost award
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Multi-defendant video-review patent action resolved by joint dismissal in E.D. Tex.

ScorpCast LLC, doing business as HaulStars, filed suit on June 16, 2020 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:20-cv-00203) before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of US9965780B2 — a patent directed at systems and methods for providing user-generated video reviews. Defendants included Oanasun Entertainment SRL and MG Freesites Ltd., both operating in the adult and broader digital video content space. The action was one of at least six related cases filed by ScorpCast around the same period in the same court.

The case concluded on January 17, 2024, when the court granted a joint motion to dismiss filed by all remaining parties. The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning ScorpCast is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against these defendants. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a structure consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a courtroom loss, though the specific financial terms, if any, remain undisclosed.

The 1,310-day duration suggests the parties litigated substantively before arriving at resolution — likely through a combination of claim construction, discovery, and settlement negotiations. The joint motion covering multiple consolidated case numbers (including 2:20-cv-192, -193, -198, -200, -203, and -210) indicates a coordinated, portfolio-wide resolution across several defendants simultaneously. What drove the final settlement — licensing, design-arounds, or other commercial factors — is not disclosed in the public record.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:20-cv-00203
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledJune 16, 2020
ClosedJanuary 17, 2024
Duration1310 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to dismissal in 1310 days

1,310 days — approximately 3.5 years from filing to joint dismissal

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, APR–MAY — 1310 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in ScorpCast, LLC v Oanasun Entertainment, SRL from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. JUN 16 2020 Complaint filed APR–MAY 2020 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 17 2024 Dismissed with prejudice 1310 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Joint dismissal with prejudice — what the court order means for each party

Legal mechanism

Dismissed with prejudice — a permanent bar on refiling

A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits. ScorpCast cannot refile this action against Oanasun Entertainment or MG Freesites on the same patent claims. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which leaves the door open — this order extinguishes the claims entirely. The joint motion signals mutual agreement, not a court-imposed ruling against either side.

Permanent resolution
Cost allocation

Each party bears its own costs — a negotiated equilibrium

The court’s order that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees is standard in jointly negotiated dismissals. It means no fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) was triggered, and neither side sought to punish the other through cost awards. This structure typically signals a commercial settlement reached without a finding of bad faith or frivolous conduct by either party.

No fee-shifting
Portfolio context

Six coordinated cases closed simultaneously by the same order

The dismissal order explicitly closed six related case numbers filed around the same time in E.D. Tex. — 2:20-cv-192, -193, -198, -200, -203, and -210. This multi-defendant, coordinated closure strongly suggests a global licensing or settlement arrangement resolved the entire campaign at once. Portfolio-wide resolutions of this type often reflect a single commercial agreement spanning all defendants rather than separate bilateral deals.

Global campaign resolution
Jurisdiction signal

E.D. Tex. filing — a deliberate plaintiff-friendly venue choice

The Eastern District of Texas under Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap remains a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its established patent docket and historically plaintiff-accessible procedures. ScorpCast’s decision to file multiple cases here simultaneously is consistent with an assertive licensing campaign strategy. The defendants’ willingness to jointly resolve rather than seek transfer suggests venue was not a winning defensive argument in this instance.

E.D. Tex. enforcement strategy
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:20-cv-00203 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffScorpCast, LLCCompanyDigital video platform (HaulStars) — holder of US9965780B2 covering user-generated video reviewsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantOanasun Entertainment, SRLCompanyOanasun Entertainment SRL and MG Freesites Ltd. — digital video content distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChad Phillip EnnisAttorneyCounsel for ScorpCast, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselFred Irvin WilliamsAttorneyCounsel for ScorpCast, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJohn WittenzellnerAttorneyCounsel for ScorpCast, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan Lloyd HardtAttorneyCounsel for ScorpCast, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael SimonsAttorneyCounsel for ScorpCast, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTodd Eric LandisAttorneyCounsel for ScorpCast, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChristopher GersonAttorneyCounsel for Oanasun Entertainment, SRLSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselFrank M. GasparoAttorneyCounsel for Oanasun Entertainment, SRLSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJaewon LeeAttorneyCounsel for Oanasun Entertainment, SRLSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJonathan Mark SharretAttorneyCounsel for Oanasun Entertainment, SRLSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMelissa Richards SmithAttorneyCounsel for Oanasun Entertainment, SRLSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapChief JudgeTexas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Scorpcast LLC d/b/a HaulStars and Defendants Boutique Media PTY LTD, All 4 Health SRL, KB Productions, LLC, Manica Media SL, Oanasun Entertainment SRL, Bravomax Services Limited (Dkt. No. 190.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE cases 2:20-cv-193, 2:20-cv-192, 2:20-cv-198, 2:20-cv-200, 2:20-cv-203, and 2:20-cv-210 as no parties or claims remain.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:20-cv-00203, Texas Eastern District Court · Filed January 17, 2024

The court’s order adopts the joint motion language verbatim, confirming that the resolution was entirely party-driven — the court made no findings on infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it functions as a final judgment, permanently extinguishing ScorpCast’s right to reassert these specific claims against these defendants. The simultaneous closure of six related case numbers under a single order strongly suggests the parties reached a single coordinated commercial resolution spanning the entire defendant group.

PACER case 2:20-cv-00203 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9965780B2 — System and Methods for User-Generated Video Reviews

Publication No.US9965780B2
Application No.US15/688566
Patent details
AssigneeScorpCast, LLC
ProductUS9965780B2 — user-generated video review platform technology
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJune 16, 2020

US9965780B2 (application no. US15/688566) protects systems and methods for enabling users to create, submit, and share video-based reviews within a digital platform context. The patent sits at the intersection of user-generated content architecture and video delivery technology — a space that underpins consumer review platforms, adult content sites, and a broad range of video-enabled e-commerce and media environments. The application was filed before the widespread maturation of user video review features across major consumer platforms, giving the patent potential breadth across common implementations.

From a strategic standpoint, US9965780B2 represents the kind of horizontally applicable software patent that can be asserted across multiple industry verticals simultaneously — as ScorpCast demonstrated by filing six coordinated cases. Any platform that allows users to submit video content as a form of review or rating may fall within the claims’ scope depending on implementation details. The patent’s persistence as an enforcement vehicle — generating multi-defendant litigation over three and a half years — confirms its commercial value to the holder and its threat relevance to operators.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your platform run an FTO check against US9965780B2?

If your product or platform enables users to upload, record, or submit video content as a review, testimonial, or rating — whether in e-commerce, entertainment, adult content, or SaaS — US9965780B2 is a patent your legal and product teams should evaluate. ScorpCast has already demonstrated willingness to assert this patent aggressively across multiple defendants. A freedom-to-operate analysis is particularly warranted for platforms that have not previously received a licensing approach from ScorpCast or HaulStars, and for those building or acquiring user-generated video review features.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claims of US9965780B2 and its related patent family, including any continuation or divisional applications filed from US15/688566 that may carry different or broader claim scope. Claim-level monitoring through Eureka allows your team to receive alerts if new applications in the ScorpCast family are published or granted — giving you time to adapt before litigation risk materialises.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9965780B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar user-generated video patent cases in E.D. Tex. and related courts

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
ScorpCast, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, ScorpCast, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
HaulStars v. Boutique MediaScorpCast v. KB ProductionsUGC video patent E.D. Tex. casesVideo review patent assertions 2020–24
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the digital video and user-review IP landscape

A coordinated six-case dismissal suggests ScorpCast’s patent campaign achieved commercial results — or hit strategic limits. Both carry implications for platform operators.

US9965780B2 remains active — other platforms may still face exposure

Dismissal with prejudice only bars claims against these specific defendants. ScorpCast’s patent US9965780B2 remains in force. Any platform enabling user-generated video reviews should assess whether its implementation falls within the patent’s claims, particularly if it has not received a licensing approach from ScorpCast or HaulStars.

Coordinated multi-defendant campaigns signal organised IP enforcement

Filing six cases simultaneously against multiple digital video operators is characteristic of a structured patent assertion campaign. Companies in the user-generated content, adult entertainment, and video review verticals should monitor ScorpCast’s filing activity and patent portfolio for follow-on enforcement actions against new targets or continuation patents.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
ScorpCast licensing benchmarksContinuation application riskE.D. Tex. campaign ROI signals
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

ScorpCast v Oanasun — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own FTO analysis against US9965780B2

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent maps your platform’s user video features against the active claims of US9965780B2. Set up claim monitoring to catch continuation filings before they become litigation risk.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.